Mansplain Bingo

mansplain-bingo

really mansplaining refers to debate practices done incorrectly or in bad faith
it’s all about the pretentious people appealing to their own authority
in lieu of proof/s
they lack honour but go on to disrespect their opponent while refusing to let them leave
trans. intellectually dishonest bullies
aka It can’t be antisocial if I use big words! Stop crying! Stop hitting yourself!
they assume an authority above the other speaker without anything to back it up
it’s just extremely more typical for the male to bitch with rationalizations to feel intellectual

it’s a logical fallacy to wield the terms and ideas of logic incorrectly
their own emotional high rests on their opponents’ ignorance of correct form
like kicking sand in their eyes in a fight
they’re low
they need to cheat because they’re scum

no parties involved can commonly articulate this because neither of them fully know the rules

in short, in response to one stupid person/group, you get the REAL triggered group

they pretend to be offended by lies, but it’s really personal -like, REALLY personal

the opposite of gentlemanly (correct form) making them instant losers

going “achtually” when nobody invited them, they don’t know what they’re talking about (man card is not a valid qualification on STEM topics) and sperging out

in a woman it’s called being a gossip, being a bitch, whining, being nosy or nagging
they try to pass all those off as proof of masculinity and veracity (fooling no one, causing temper tantrum)

it’s entirely fully 100% bitchy men pretending to be smart

starting on the idiots they perceive as slightly lower in the chain

throwing a tantrum when you point it out

very delta/gamma

not men, but boys, too easily triggered to be masculine

when arrogant men and women bump noggins, but project their faults as an innately sexual thing

buy hey, I just believe in Burden of Proof

Most things are not obvious. Otherwise, a debate would be redundant.

eyeroll marilyn monroe rlly really uhuh hmmm oh

My personal favourites are;

you’re too dumb to explain it to (or, Occam’s razor, you can’t do it cos you’re poorly informed and therefore wrong) but also I don’t even understand you and that’s your fault (incredulity)

If I repeat myself maybe it’ll make it sound like I have a valid point.

If you call me out on any of my bullshit, somehow ad hominem.

Autistic shrieking as they gesture at both wikipedia and the common dictionary of non-technical terms.

If you make my beliefs look stupid, I will get so defensive I can only call it a strawman but cannot explain why.

The weak man fallacy is postmodern moral relativism

In short, you can’t judge our worst because you don’t appreciate our best.

Yes, it’s the Marilyn quote writ spergy.

It’s a form of manipulation that snidely suggests: unless you cede ground (cheerleading for us, hang Burden of Proof), you must have no ground to cede (intones reciprocity may be given in exchange like a con artist). It assumes the target must qualify themselves and positions the speaker as Moral Authority, without the merest mention of biographical proof for that, highest of statuses (people often engaged in debates over morality rarely have a moral compass to speak of, they are simply virtue signalling in comparing how relatively bad they are to one another like a pissing match of STDs and bad decisions).

h/t http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

I want to clarify a few things from this point without insulting SSC who is a brilliant writer I respect the intelligence of. This isn’t going to be precise because I think the fallacy is baseless.

The tumblr example is terrible, there’s a third variable causing the row, claiming the social status of doctor when its value is in its earning. Beth is claiming she is the moral equivalent of a Doctor because she can use Google. Alice is correct but worded her complaint poorly (doesn’t make her wrong).

The supposed weak man fallacy is actually based on stereotype, and these are empirically valid social constructs (the dark secret of liberal social psychology) connecting demographic to characteristic behaviour so arguing against them is like pissing in the rhetorical wind, the train is fine!

No literally, you can disprove the postmodern ‘stereotypes are mean lies’ people with maths. A lot of this is clever high-level social intelligence leveraged against the dumb and dishonest. It appears dumb to spergs until the person using these tactics wins, at which point the sperg assumes a fallacy must have been committed and the winner must be dialectic-ally, factually wrong because they can’t personally understand it (a common issue with the supposed rationalist community).

The fastest way to get someone to self-identify their moral issues is to openly criticize those issues and wait for them to argue against you, because it’s personal to them and you identified them without needing to address them by name, but by flaw, and they will argue against you whatever the content of your own argument, however blank and vacant and subjective e.g. I hate women who slut around, any woman objecting is identifying herself as a slut or I hate entitled men who think they’re everything while proving nothing, any man objecting is identifying as entitled, to hold such egoistic beliefs without pragmatic grounds i.e. narcissist.

I hate (group) who do (thing).

It’s very precise and an effective rhetorical shiv. It’s also self-contained logic. You can’t reason against it, if the assertion itself is true (stereotypical). Yes, in reality, they do.

Sometimes people trying to wield this take it too far and go into motivation (cheap Freud knockoffs without formal qualification, see Dr thing above for deserved societal disdain). Such secondary assertions can be argued against (reasons, motives) and rhetorically bring the whole house down despite how the original assertion is in fact statistically significant, but score 1 for the enemy, numbnuts. You overplayed your hand.

Not All (group) is missing the point, unless *All* was similarly overplayed or implied by the original assertion, while achieving the opposition’s aim of outing that very group, so you can hold them socially accountable for their actions (more on this below). It’s like playing Spot the Vegan or the remarkably dull reply of “Well I identify as a feminist!” Yes, you blithering idiot, I was hoping you would. Game on.

This is crucial so, when losing, they can’t fall back on the “I was just playing Devil’s Advocate” card, a third person neutral objective perspective card. Personal is the opposite of those things.

As for belief systems, pointing out inconsistencies and reasoning from the most evil behaviour up is rather logical. Membership of ideological groups is a choice and all members support by the very fact of their identification support their group’s most insane ideas, what is often referred to as privilege is actually a refusal to question their own behaviour and decision-making skills, psychological immaturity from any adult, a refusal to overcome their ego, for example, MGTOW refuse to question male choices nor admit poor male decision-making exists, so now they’re gaining a reputation as hateful as feminists. Since no adult is blameless and it’s a victimhood mentality to blame authority figures for your own fuck-ups.

They are trying to excuse the bad eggs by pointing to the good eggs, while the whole point of the argument is that the good eggs are by their chosen membership in the group shielding the bad eggs from the criticism the argument is attempting to provide, perhaps to find a solution together and correct it for communal benefit. It’s also a failure to apply the same logical proposition broadly, so if you cannot make a specific type of decision in one area e.g. this is good wife material, it’s a symptom of a deeper error in decision making (quality assessment, personal preference) that will affect all other areas of life too, in deeper and more obscure ways.

Weak man isn’t even its own fallacy, it’s moving the goalposts (metaphorically fleeing) and putting words in the other person’s mouth by making premise assumptions (straw man), up to and including a conspiratorial evil plan e.g. against Jews, that must be reasoned as true from the opponent’s own argument to be accepted in debate. You don’t hang someone on the basis of the testimony of their enemy, but you can hang them on their own. If the person says evil things, it can be assumed they have evil intent e.g. Kill All Men. If they do not, or give another plausible explanation, they must be given benefit of the doubt, hence innocent until proven guilty.

Relating to the bad egg example;

Why would you shield someone personally if you thought what they were doing was wrong?

This mode of argument entices our hidden motives, evil ones, such as those anti-tradition and anti-civilization ones commonly held by SJWs.

Intellectual honesty values the dialectic correction to short-term rhetorical (political) victory. Lose the battle, win the
war.

The simplest rhetorical spurn I can give is;

(Commonly accepted Evil demo) weren’t all bad, they (did good thing).

example

The Nazis weren’t all bad, they saved countless lives with their medical research.

Technically true, yet missing the point of any ideological argument.

Or on a personal behaviour level;

Hitler was an atheist vegan who loved dogs.

The middle class Guardianista bubble is bursting

The parents, important paragraph, they’re called The Talking Class for a reason;

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/rod-liddle/2015/09/if-only-middle-class-liberals-would-shut-up-we-might-get-a-proper-debate/

So the fault does not lie with the BBC, even if the corporation is undoubtedly biased. But neither is it a case that, as Birkett put it, one section of the audience simply likes to get ‘stuck in’. It is more fundamental. It would seem that the only people interested in these sorts of debates are the relentlessly involved, affluent, jabbering, middle-class liberals. Often working in the public or third sector. It is nigh on impossible to get them to shut up for a minute, so we can hear the views from the vast majority……………………..

It’s like when a Professor asked me about the low turnout at a protest and I quipped “everyone else was at work”.

This is the real turning point, however. The National Union of Students is Commie Central.

The spawn;

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/09/if-you-only-defend-free-speech-for-those-you-agree-with-youre-not-actually-defending-it/

…Anyone who thinks universities should be sites of open and sometimes rowdy debate should welcome WSU’s climbdown as a strike for freedom and a blow against the stiff, prim, censorious misanthropes who govern 21st-century student life….

Temporary, they like money.
If we make them see they’ll lose money by alienating normal students it might get through.

Best comment;

If the students were smarter, most of them wouldn’t be burning all that cash at University.

r-types and arguments

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/we-are-now-at-the-point-in-this-argument-where-i-realize-i-am-wrong

If you’re playing by Queensberry rules using logic and the other guy is fighting dirty and kicks sand in your eyes, he will always win.

At this point, I’m no longer connected to my actual values, but instead the pure animalistic desire to be better than another person. You’re still playing with everything to lose. I wish I could just say you’re right — I really do — but my lizard like brain is defensive and you’ve attacked me. I can see in your eyes how much you actually care about not only this issue, but also how much you care about me. I’m actually kind of sad for you.

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

Subhuman, see it? Zero intellectual honesty, no searching for truth, no emotional sincerity whatsoever. They’re bullies looking for someone to verbally kick. The ‘debate’ is a framework, they broke the rules first by entering with dishonest intentions. Morally, you’re clean.
They don’t feel genuine pity or remorse (except for themselves, hardly genuine). They know the words but not the music, as is often said of sociopaths.
When in debate with a person like this, do not let them go. Do not let them wriggle out. Amygdala hijack them over and over again as hard as you can and wait for them to crack before they run (you’ll know when they crack, you’ll just know). You screw them down and crush them (h/t Greene) or they will go after other innocent people. When they run away by choice (which requires cracking first), they don’t come back. It triggers their childhood rejection schema. When they are crushed, they think twice the next time they want to start trouble. If enough people do this, they stop altogether. It’s a moral duty to create this outcome if you may.

Know how I know this?
How I can tell the damaged ones on-sight? Partly experience, partly….

In the future, I will perhaps be calmer and admit my wrongdoing. However, more likely, I will add this moment to the large list of times I’ve been wrong and let it be erased from my memory. When you mention it again, I will pretend it never even happened.

MEMORY BLACKOUTS ARE NOT NORMAL. 

I believe AC covered them in r-type narcissists/sociopaths.

He genuinely believes all of that, because that is what he remembers, even if he doesn’t remember a single phrase or idea Klingenstein said to him (which I am sure he doesn’t).

False memories up the wazoo.

(It should be noted, if attempting an amygdala hijack, and your opponent successfully meme-ifies you in their mind, your hijack will fail, because they will no longer be listening. In such a case, you must de-meme-ify yourself in their head, by identifying how they meme’d you, and then showing exactly how wrong they are using pure logic, in an argument made to the crowd of observers watching. Once you are no longer racist, etc. to the crowd, they look silly for thinking that, and they are back paying attention, continue to out-group and humiliate, in a calm and reasoned fashion.)

and here

The first time I realized he had real problems was the day after he did something weird right in front of me. The next day I asked him why he did it, and he looked at me confused. “I never did that! Not only didn’t I do that…. I would never do that!” His voice rose to a crescendo, his arms waved in the air, and his insistence, combined with the genuinely puzzled and confused look on his face, made me think he literally didn’t remember doing something very memorable the day before. Otherwise, how could he deny it, and think I would acquiesce?

…This was my first clear introduction to the concept of “False Reality.” Narcissists inhabit what is called a false reality. In this false reality, they are as near to perfect as a human being could possibly be. Of course this false reality usually diverges from real reality, where they often will have difficulty in the simplest of relationships over the long term – and most who know them well view them as, for lack of better words, evil, damaged, and crazy.

Everyone else is screwed up, even people they used to sing the praises of, suddenly stories of secret abuse and “deserving” bad things come out. It’s warped to watch them. Highly disturbing.

Something common I’ve had: They claim correcting them on the inappropriateness of personal issues in reasoned debate is abuse. That you are abusing them by using logic. Seriously.

pause stop wait what is going on confused da vinci demons leonardo

n.b. I realize this site is comedy but it really nails the mindset.

Logical rudeness in debates

When your opponent isn’t using logic? Or reality? Or objectivity?

http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

(Logical rudeness)…Unlike a petitio, it does not purport to justify a conclusion or belief; it purports to justify believers in disregarding criticism of their beliefs as if such criticism were inapplicable, irrelevant, or symptomatic of error. This is not self-justification in the manner of a petitio, in which assumed premises can validly imply the disputed conclusion.

Sum: If somebody isn’t playing by the rules of formal debate, they bring the whole thing down and might be excluded.

…”Philosophers have no equivalent of default except the presumption that the silent or rude theorist has no answer on the merits to offer, and (qua individual proponent) may be presumed ignorant or incorrect and dismissed. This presumption, however, is very legalistic, and in many cases will be false.”…

Practice of Law =/= ” ” Science

It may seem that the imputation of a foible or fault to a critic simply qua critic is always optional, never necessary to preserve the consistency of the theory or the good faith of the proponent. But this is not true. First, there is the case of the brazen theory which includes as a tenet the forthright equation of disagreement and error. This tenet is not as rare, nor probably as naive, as one might at first suspect. It may be called (using legal jargon) the “exclusivity clause” of the theory. Any theory may have an exclusivity clause, and most theories may have them without contradicting their own content. The “clause” merely states that the set of tenets comprising the theory is the truth and the only truth on its precise subject. It does not imply completeness; but it does imply that propositions inconsistent with the theory are false. It may be tacit and understood, and indeed it does seem to follow from the mere claim of truth according to the principle of excluded middle (tacit in many theories) and most classical notions of truth. If a theory contains an exclusivity clause, even a tacit one, it impels the good faith proponent to equate disagreement and error. Critics may courteously be indulged in the realm of debate, and cajoled into seeing the light, if possible, but that would be supererogatory under the canons of logic and good faith. One premise of “civilized” debate —that any contender might be speaking the truth and debate is one way to tell who— is not shared by all the contenders. For this reason it is disturbing to note that almost any claim to truth may bear a tacit exclusivity clause.

If you are being purely logical and the other person comes up with a personal story, you can, in most instances, rightfully call them an idiot for using that as a parry to your point. It’s like bringing a spoon to a knife fight.

Even more disturbing is the case of philosophical systems. The paradigm of good philosophy for several western traditions —the complete, consistent system— is impelled to be rude….

If the system is supposed to be complete as well as true, then the good faith proponent must believe the critic in error, and therefore must apply the system’s explanation of error to her. Note that mere belief in the completeness and truth of the system suffices here to justify the conclusion that disagreement is error. The good faith proponent need not immediately act on this belief in the critic’s error, but neither can he escape concluding it, any more than he could willingly suspend judgment on the truth of his beliefs. Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness. [DS: rude people tell the truth] They must defend their beliefs either by appeal to premises and principles from outside the system, which they believe are false, or by appeal to premises and principles from withing the system, which is question-begging and liable to be very rude. [demonstration of depth of explanation] This may be called the dilemma of systematic self-defense. To ask such a believer to be logically polite “just for the sake of argument” is equivalent to asking him to give up some tenets of the faith he wishes to defend just to enter a realm of debate to defend it. This is why systems with pretensions to completeness have traditionally seemed rude, have traditionally authorized rude defenses in their proponents, or have gone undefended at fundamental levels….

…Logical rudeness may be considered a complex form of ad hominem argument. It tells critics and dissenters that they are defective human beings whose ignorance or error is well explained as frailty, fault, foible, or the absence of a boon. Moreover, this form of ad hominem is justified by the theory under attack. When our questions are answered by ad hominem assaults, we are angered. Our anger cannot be reduced to hurt feelings because we were not merely wounded in our dignity; we were put off in our inquiries for truth by a refusal to cooperate. A rude response can therefore trigger three levels of indignation: personal affront, thwarted cooperation, and crippled inquiry. The first is personal, the second social and political, and the third epistemic.

..Some form of rudeness seems inevitable. Either the equality principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are unequally entitled to know the truth, [as if equally capable of understanding, psychometrics be damned] or the freedom principle will be violated by the rude theory that critics are making impermissible moves in a game. These two fundamental types of rudeness can be barred only by one another. To secure some courtesies, then, we must impose other rude principles. There is something Gödelian about this result. No system of logical etiquette can be both complete and consistent. For every such system there will be a permissible but rude theory. ….

…..The automatic inference of falsehood from rudeness or undebatability may be called the fallacy of petulance —in which we peevishly allow our hurt feelings to supersede our better judgement. The fallacy of petulance is to use the criteria of courtesy as criteria (or as a subset of the criteria) of truth. Sociability in debate may be important for many reasons, even for the fundamental epistemic reason of keeping debate a fruitful avenue of inquiry and for basic ethical duties to other inquirers; but its norms do not thereby become criteria of truth. ……

….The danger of legislating a style of thinking in order to secure a form of cooperation is real.  ….

Trigger warnings, anyone?

Jedi mind tricks in argument for extreme solutions

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-win-an-argument-2014-5

pdf of paper here; it will doubtless be implied this is behind the gains of the Right Wing in Europe.

Two things.

1. Methodical outcome. Communal>Individual benefit.

2. Pragmatism. ABC>DEF = G.

I think this works because we imagine trains of thought as spatial physical pathways, and walking alongside someone as they explain the latter creates an ingroup rapport. Walk a mile in their shoes applied to right-thinkers, contrary to the historical merit of shouting down your opponent. Too abstract for me.

Redpill tactics in one gif